well, kyle, thanks. let me first say what a treat it is to be back at state and see former colleagues and friends. i think elliot's correct in saying that as a matter of u.s. policy, the priority in the middle east over a number of years was strategic cooperation with governments who were not that rights respecting. i think that both under the bush administration and under the obama administration, that shifted and it shifted fundamentally, i think, yes, because of the shock of 9/11 which created an opportunity as paul noted but more particularly shifted because of changes taking place on the ground in the region. let me be very clear. i come to this issue not as someone who spent a career on democracy and human rights but a middle east policy specialist. and as a regional specialist, tracking arab politics over the last 15 or 20 years, you could see those trends building. you could see the impact of the

rising, social, economic and political expectations in the region. you could see the breakdown of the rentier state model where odd krats could buy off, effectively. you could see the impact of global trends in democracy and theceptions in the middle east. so all of that was creating a very volatile mix. now, was al qaeda one outcome of that volatile mix? i think that's a complex question with a lot of -- with a lot of variables. but what i would certainly say is that people in the region were and are reaching for dignity and there are different political entrepreneurs, if you will, arguing for how that dignity can be achieved. and al qaeda and al zawahiri in

egypt before al qaeda were among those saying you get dignity through resistance, confrontation, through violence. the tremendous opportunity presented to the region, to us, to the world, by the arab awakening, is a counternarrative that comes from within the middle east, itself, that says, no, the way to dignity is through peaceful participation in politics. and that's a big part of what's at stake in the region today. >> mike, i'm going to give you a chance in a second. i do want to ask you a quick question. didn't -- sharon walked on the mount. was that 2000, tamara? >> 2000, september. >> all right. you have this palestinian issue. which the u.s. has been seen right or wrong to be not fixing. right? i've been -- covered the first in '88. here we are 2000 and -- talk about deja vu all over again. right? so, so i do want to continue. someone asked us to have you address the human rights of

palestinians over from 9/11 to today as well which i'm going to ask you to do. you can either address it now or a little bit later, if you like. do you want to say something on that now? >> well, if we're moving -- i guess what i would say is that whether you're talking about the human rights of palestinians in the context of the ongoing arab/israeli conflict or the human rights of arab citizens elsewhere in the region in the context of a struggle for -- to defeat terrorist threats both in the region and those directed here at home, it comes back to something that was a topic of significant discussion this morning, which is the integration of human rights in u.s. foreign policy. it's not a standalone issue. you can't treat it as a standalone issue. it has to be integrated into your overall strategy and has to be -- and it's integrated through the recognition that the secretary articulated. that only through the encouragement of a more rights respecting environment and an

environment that allows for political participation and an environment that creates public accountability for governments, that there is lasting stability. that there is security. that is the basis for reliable partnerships by the united states. whether it's in the middle east or anywhere else in the world. similarly, you can say in the palestinian/israeli case that not only do incidents of human rights abuse complicate the negotiating environment and undermine trust between the parties on the ground, but it's also very difficult to envision a lasting negotiated peace that is not accompanied by respect for human rights on both sides. and so if you're smart about it, you're going to build that into the negotiating work that you're doing every day. >> let me quickly ask mike, at that point, lauren's committee on human rights was four, five years old at that point. when was it founded? >> 1978. >> i'm sorry.

1978. much older than that. >> yeah. >> where were you and where did you see this in terms of a human rights shift, since human rights has been your cause in life? >> you're talking about the -- >> 9/11. >> well, i was actually in new york on 9/11 and saw one of the towers fall. so it was a transformational moment, i think, for the human rights ngo community. we had been in durbin, so we got back, and i remember on september 10th meeting with the staff, having just been part of a very contentious and disturbing meeting and saying, i don't know quite how, but the world is different, and we're going to have some challenges ahead. and i obviously had no idea what was coming. but i think we all recognize that all of our work was going to be fundamentally different. the one thing i would say from our ngo perspective in those years is that we were very mindful of the challenges posed by some of the legislation and

some of the things that tim and you all have talked about. clearly, as secretary clinton has said often, we need to lead by example. and some of the things that happened, particularly detention policy, some of the issues around guantanamo, made it harder for the u.s. to be a leader and as an ngo, those are issues we focused on. and one of the reasons, frankly, i came into this administration, was the president's declaration on the second day that we would treat prisoners humanely, that we would address detention issues including guantanamo. i'm proud to be part of an administration that takes the view that there really is no such thing as a law-free zone, that people are subject to legal protection wherever they are and what circumstance. as dan freed said, we have a long way to go. i think those issues are going to be with us for a while and need to find a bipartisan to

address them going forward, to be stronger internationally as well. >> as we go to war, put boots on the ground in afghanistan then iraq, how much is that -- i want to get in policy for a minute, but my question is more one of perception around the world. how much harder is it if -- the running theme today has been the u.s. is a beacon for human rights, as an example, a shining light. i wrote a million different variations on this today. which are all incredibly important. but now we have afghanistan, which is one thing. afghanistan 2001. then we have iraq 2003. my question for you, we'll get to abugraib in a second. hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground in these countries. how much more of a challenge does that present when we're trying to present ourselves as a beacon for human rights, both for good and for bad? any one of you. does any one of you want to address that? lauren? >>. >> it was interesting. i went out -- beth jones is no

longer here. she was assistant secretary for europe. when i was here. and we had taken an interest in central asia of 9/11, as colin powell, said american troops come with values. and we were putting a lot of american troops through central asia. and i remember along about 2004, i mentioned to beth that i was going to be traveling to central asia, in kazakhstan. she said, great, let's go together. i never traveled with beth before. she and i were sometimes like that on human rights. we were in kergistan. we funded for $750,000 a new printing press in kergistan. the previous -- the only printing press previously had been run by the president's son-in-law, and so on certain days newspapers didn't get printed in kergistan. we were going to cut the ribbon on it that day, beth and i. we went before that ceremony to

central asia university which is probably the most prestigious university in the region and the ambassador, our ambassador there, said to us at the time, they're going to hammer you on palestine, iraq, afghanistan, et cetera, et cetera. and we walked in the room and we never got a question on palestine or iraq or afghanistan. all people wanted to know about was why are you doing this? you know, this is an ally of the u.s. you're using the air base. i walked out, as we were walking out, i said to beth, you know, we could have spent millions of dollars on some public relations campaign in this country, but instead we're spending $750,000 on this printing press. and that's what people wanted to talk about. and what i found in those years was what we were doing in iraq and afghanistan and the detention policies, et cetera, were a big issue with our allies. it was always on the agenda in europe. many dictators attempted to make it a big issue, but i also found

that if -- and i actually did this once straight-out to a chinese diplomat. he brought up detention policies and torture. and i said, look, in my country, most of these things are not policy. they're anomalies if we're torturing somebody. i said, in your country, it's a matter of course, it's been going on for decades. with the assent of your leadership. so i said there's no comparison between our two countries. and that was kind of the end of that. what was most interesting to me was i never had a dissident say to me, i'm not going to take your assistance because of guantanamo. or i'm not going to take your assistance because you invaded iraq or afghanistan. so i'm not saying that i think all of those policies were perfect, and i think tim has put it very, very well about how the pendulum swung all the way this way right after 9/11 and started to swing back. but i think it is important to look at the different audiences that you're addressing. and i -- you know, i'm sure some

of the current administration, with all the -- now the -- lots of commentary in the press about drones and all of this is facing some of the same issues, but i think it's important to divide it into different audiences and to realize how to treat each different audience. you know, try to modify our policies. don't let dictators try and throw it in your face. throw it back in theirs. and realize the dissidents aren't going to care. >> tamara wants to say something on this. >> well, two quick points. number one, i would argue, you know, maybe this was more in my nongovernmental life before i came to the state department when you were here and i was at brookings and maybe dissidents speak differently to officials than to nonoffici-officials. i certainly heard about guantanamo and abu ghraib from a lot. the message i heard was, we want you to live up to your own ideals, your own rhetoric.

it wasn't that those things undermined their belief to democratic values, it was they thought we weren't doing a good enough job and wanted us to measure up. the second thing that i wanted to note is, i was in doha for a conference brookings organizes there every year in march of 2004. it was a very, very, very tense time. we were in iraq. things were not going well. abu ghraib had broken. and i think it the march. it was the week that don rumsfeld was up on the hill answering questions about abu ghraib. we got to doha. we had people gathered from across the region. and they were pretty angry at the united states. but we actually had trouble getting them into the sessions of the conference because they were all watching the abu ghraib hearings up in their hotel rooms. they were fascinated by the fact our defense secretary was getting hauled up on the hill to face this questioning.

and, you know, as bad as that series of events was, the fact that we could demonstrate instant and serious accountability for our public officials, i think, was really important. >> mike, did you want -- >> yeah, just to sort of echo what tamara just said, one of the things i feel really proud about that we've done in the last couple of years is to be forthright but in a non-defensive way about our own domestic system. we, in the fall of 2010, harold and i and ester bremer were in geneva for the first iteration of what's called universal periodic review. every country now under a new u.n. procedure has to evaluate its own performance and come before the human rights council and describe it. and in anticipation of that, we held about a dozen sessions with ngos of various stripes dealing with border issues, with race

discrimination, with national security. we had close to 1,000 people participate. and what was great about the session was that we came there better prepared probably than any government, with more ngos following along with us. ready to be critical. and ready to in some cases give us praise. we had a town hall for ngos to talk to us. and in a way, we set a standard. that, when i say, we want to lead by example, that's exactly what i mean. so it's possible for us to be both self-critical, as we are, but it's also something the world looks at and they twgo, m god, how many of the people standing up to criticize us have anything approaching what we have in terms of a lively public debate in their own countries? that's part of, i think, the way we do lead by example. people see that these are issues we don't shy away from and it's part of why we can lead in trying to address these issues around the world. >> let me ask, this is a,

perhaps a truly naive question but i'm going to ask it, like many of my questions, and i'm going to ask it to those of you of the hill again. the political process, owning up what we do and taking responsible for what goes wrong. lorne, you talked about mistakes. i want to hear a bit more about those. we're in an election year, where you often see -- i remember this from early reagan days. we were the new shining city on a hill and that became something that people thought allowed him to be re-elected -- well, elected the first time after jimmy carter, for example, where carter was sort of owning mistakes one might say, particularly domestically. my question for those of you, the two of you who have come to us from capitol hill, is about political will. w when we want to hold ourself accountable with american people. do you think they -- i get why the rest of the world is digging it, but what does that do for your bosses who have to face re-election, frankly? >> i actually don't think we're very good at holding ourselves accountable.

i mean, we're good at what has been described, and i really agree with what lorne outlined just in terms of the complexities of this and the fact that, you know, how people perceive us is really a function of a long tradition and it really varies depending on where you are and who they are and there is an expectation that we are going to live up to the values that we profess to believe in and that we are going to lead by example and all that. but generally while i do think that, you know, we're good about hauling members of the administration up to be questioned and all of that, ultimately, we don't seem to be very good at actually holding anybody accountable for anything. with the exception of in some cases fairly low-level people.

and it also seems to me that we don't learn a whole lot from our mistakes. we have a remarkable ability to repeat them. and so while some things have changed since the original reaction to 9/11, i don't think that much has changed, in fact. not nearly as much as what we would have anticipated or some of us hoped for. and we're still, as a result, struggling with this and while i think it's true that most people are concerned that we -- you know, they want us to live up to the values that we set for ourselves, as was mentioned. they really look to us for that. it has -- it has made it more difficult for us. i know that in my own conversations with, whether it's ngos or foreign officials, these

issues come up a lot. and i have to continually say, look, that -- the fact that certain things happened on the part of our own government doesn't mean that we agree with them. we have differences within our own government and we certainly express those differences and just as we have concerns about the way your government treats its people, we don't always agree with the way our government does. but it has definitely made it more difficult for us in terms of our own credibility and the example that we would like to set in our foreign policy. and at the same time, it has, i think, compelled us in a very bipartisan way to find as many opportunities as we can to support people in these countries who are working for democracy and human rights. whether it's through organizations like lorne's or others. we see this as hugely important and a way that we, despite some

of the policies that we have that may seem contradictory, that we can support those principles through people in these countries that are often risking their lives. >> tim, before you continue, tim, you with senator leahy designed a law. i don't know when the law was passed. that prohibits the u.s. military from training soldiers who have been involved in human rights abuses. is that right? do i have that right? >> that's close. >> close enough? >> it's -- what it says is that if the secretary of state has credible information that a unit of a foreign security force has committed a gross violation of human rights, then that unit is no longer eligible for u.s. assistance. whether it's training or equipment or other types of assistance. unless the government is taking effective steps to hold the individual members of that unit

accountable for whatever the violation was. >> when was that passed? >> initially in 1997. >> really? okay. has it been effective? >> that is a long conversation. >> all right. and certainly steve here could talk at great length on the subject. >> i'd love to know. >> it has, i think, been hugely important. it has become institutionalized. it has become part of the workings of this buildifing and embassies around the world. it has been applied -- depending on the country, the circumstances. it's a constant work in progress. i do think this administration, particularly, has taken significant steps to better define the policies and practices that underlie this law, which i think everyone agrees is -- has real benefits for the united states. and for our relations with other

countries. but it is in very much a work in progress. >> i would love to know how it applies to bahrain, for example. i can ask that in a minute. paul, do you want to address what we were talking about in terms of -- >> i just want to say, maybe two observations. first of all, our system was designed to be messy. it was not designed to be predi predictable system. if you want a predictable system, you have an authoritarian government. we make mistakes. we are not perfect. we remain the best. we can beat ourselves up over bad decisions we make, and we certainly do. at the end of the day, the people i worked with for eight year at iri, the issues they had with the united states were not related to the major issues in the newspaper. frankly, it was related to a.i.d. cutting our funding. we can't get the ambassador to speak up on those issues. these parochial issues. not major issues. i'm not saying they don't affect it.

the chinese love it when we make mistakes. we actually help them. we need to be smarter about how we approach things, you know, question. our system of government was designed to be exactly what's happening today. and i think we can't lose sight of that. if we want a different government with predict blt, be careful what we ask for. >> lorne, did you have something to say on this? >> i think what paul said is really, really important. i often found people in those years, when we would -- when i would raise the subject -- would say, look, you made mistakes over many, many decades. everything from watergate, the cia scandals, to the present day. they say what we find interesting is your institutions. for example, after 2000, a lot of people outside, americans outside government said to me -- i was at iri at the time. they said, oh, god, you're not going to be able to talk about democracy overseas. look what's happening in our elections. all these hanging chads. dispute. the things ended up in the supreme court. i was a little sheepish around

some of the folks we were helping. and then they would bring it up. and i think, oh, god. what they said was, you know, that's all we want in our country. they said, in your country, there's no tanks out in the streets. there's no shooting from inside the white house to outside the white house. it's all calm. it's ended up with your supreme court and the decision will probably be accepted by both candidates. they said, that's all we want in our country. so there are certainly, as i said, mistakes that have been made in every administration on security issues, et cetera. and i, you know, clearly there's a need, as tim started off saying, for the pendulum to swing back. but i think there's only so much flagellation we ought to do and understand there are people around the world that would simply like a system that's a lot less predictable than the one they have. >> i want to get to the arab

spring. there's so much to cover and involves all the issues we talked about. tamara, i actually wanted to ask you, there was something specific you wanted to talk about with regard to the arab spring. the egypt and the ngo, for all those who remember the egypt/ngo situation, when the ngos were held in court. right? why don't you talk about it for a minute? >> we can't speak about it in the past tense, either. >> okay. >> unfortunately. you know, i -- it was something i want to address in particular partly because the way in which the state department and the administration partnered with civil society in the middle east i think is illustrative of development here in drl and the way we do democracy, diplomacy, but also to address a narrow issue. so let me start by making note of what secretary clinton and mike posner have done on this

issue of partnership with civil society. that the secretary's really launched a global agenda on freedom of association that i think is going to be a lasting legacy for the united states abroad. and both in articulating why civil society is important, what role it plays in free societies. and also setting up mechanisms to support human rights organizations that are under threat and new ways to partner with organizations in an ongoing manner. and, but what that meant is that in the years even before the arab spring began, we were expanding our partnerships. and it was also the cairo speech, by the way, and president obama's commitment to build relationships people to people. and that meant that in my bureau, all of our embassies were tasked with expanding their relationships. and reaching out to civil society. so when things started to happen on the ground, we had

relationships, we had partners, we had sources of information. even when our embassy officers were stuck inside because of protests and security reasons. and couldn't get out themselves to see what was going on. that's all important from the diplomacy side that we have broader sources of information. it helps our political reporting. our analysis, our policy formation. but as we look ahead to what's happening in the arab world now in the states in transition that are writing new rules for politics and building new institutions. when we think about societies that are still struggling for freedom, i think it's important to emphasize the critical role of civil society going forward. we're at a moment in the arab awakening where there's a lot of anxiety in washington about what's happening. is this the arab winter? the islamists are winning. is that bad? and if we're anxious about

authoritarian relapse, if we're anxious about the commitment of the electoral victors in some of these countries to democracy and pluralism, if we're anxious about ma jortarianism overriding human rights, who's going to help ensure the bad outcomes don't take place? who's going to promote public accountability for new institutions? who's going to promote the values of dialogue and compromi compromise? civil society is going to do that. in these countries, that's what civil society does. before the egyptian revolution, it was civil society organizations who, you know, uncovered the truth behind the death of sayeed, whose anniversary we marked this week. and since the revolution, civil society organizations in egypt got a court ruling against military trials of civilians. so if we are serious about the

fundamental policy insight that i think you've heard from so many people today, that lasting stability in the region is going to require a thorough change to government that's marked by accountability, then we have to recognize the central role of civil society in making that possible. and, you know, i think, part of what i hear right now in the wake of this crisis in u.s./egyptian relations over our funding of ngos is the sense that this is about us. it's not about us. it's about what's happening in egypt. it's about a struggle for power on the ground in cairo and an attempt to sideline a sector of egyptian society that's working for accountability. and, you know, i also hear people saying these groups aren't popular, they're not -- they're not winning majorities in the elections. look at our own ngos. you know? our own ngos do not have millions and millions of members.

they have thousands, if they're lucky they have a few hundred thousand. and these groups are always marginal, but they're absolutely crucial. >> well, i actually would -- i don't think the women are marginal. and the women, i met a lot of the women this week and have talked to so many women in the middle east who also came to women in the world and they are so terribly frustrated. they say, we marched for this, we fought for this, we got hit for this, we got attacked for this. when it comes down to running a constitution, when it comes down to the politics, we're out. and they -- i talked to an egyptian about this last night, one of the honorees at vital voices. she also talked about with that the cultural problem of discrimination against women anyway in so in of these countries. it's the ultimate human rights question for women, obviously, there. they are not safe, and i was in yemen, actually, with secretary clinton last year and then stayed. what women go through in yemen is, again, i think the media failed there. i got into this the last round. but it is slavery. and women in so many countri